ABG: Top Gear -- BMW M3 vs. Toyota Prius fuel economy race track competition (video)
 

From AutoBlogGreen: the popular UK auto program Top Gear came to an interesting conclusion. Thrashing a Prius around a track vs. idling a BMW M3 behind it, demonstrated the obvious.

YouTube - Top Gear - Toyota Prius Vs BMW M3

Possibly the most redeeming statement by Clarkson, in the cause of saving fuel: "It doesn't matter what you drive, it's how you drive it".

RH77

no fair, the M3 was drafting the whole time:p

haha

Damnit, I wanted to post that.

also notice that the m3 can take an easier/ more efficient route due to stickier tires/ suspension.

another note of interest, the bmw 535d had about the same track mpg as the prius. hey; just a data point.

also note that the german supercars (audi and mercialago share lots of parts and the vw parent company) were the most fuel efficient. i wish they had the diesel audi in the bunch.

good thing nobody from ecomodder was driving in that race; we'd still be watching :-)

Yeah, I just sit here all day and think about how I can beat Ben to the punch... :p

...and bump the post. :D

also it didn't take into any consideration stopping, at lights and deceleration the prius are charging batteries.

It wasn't at all fair, but it wasn't meant to be. The show's lead host is known for bashing anything "green", especially hybrids -- and certainly the Prius.

After the first lap, the batteries were likely in need of charge -- so for the rest of the race, it had to work double-duty to feed the batteries and propel the car.

RH77

plus the little prius engine had to work harder than the V-8 to achieve its top speed.

why would they even try to bash it's epa fuel economy and say it is worse than a sports car.

If you watch their review of the Prius they don't see the point in hybrids since they have all these great turbodiesels that get equal mileage and blow the Prius' doors off. Of course, if the "race" had been from one side of London to the other, who would have won that?;)

Personally, I don't agree with hybrids. We have been using EV's for probably about 100 years now, and we have proven with the now gone EV1 that we were ready for full EV's. Unfortunately, auto makers would rather kiss butt to the oil industry, and the way they can satisfy consumers and oil companies at once? Hybrids. This though, is why I hate Top gear. He constantly bashes the G-Wiz (Also known as the Riva) and clumps it with the majority of EV's today. Who can blame him, though? Nowadays, even smaller companies not affected by the oil companies are selling NEV's that get 40MPH at the most. Consider the Zap Xebra, that has a 6.7 HP motor and will get 40 MPH if it is only having to carry one person. The EV1 and the Rav4 EV went extremely fast and were much more attractive than EV's today.

He bashes the Prius because thats what it deserves in a county where you can buy any number of equally efficient diesel and gasoline vehicles that cost half as much. As for "show's lead host is known for bashing anything "green"... Oh really now?
YouTube - Top Gear: Vegetable Oil for Diesel

YouTube - Top Gear Bmw 5 Series Diesel Vs Petrol

YouTube - Top Gear - 800 miles on 1 tank in Audi A8 (Part 1 of 2)

YouTube - Top Gear - 800 miles on 1 tank in Audi A8 (Part 2 of 2)

Still, I say, "Rubbish"

Has Mr. Clarkson praised his Mum's Honda Jazz/Fit for it's funtionality, handling, or convenience? No -- only that it goes 340 miles between fill ups before the Audi mileage challenge.

The BMW 330d -- if it was slow and gave off the fewest emissions in it's class while pampering his English ego, would he have given it high marks? No.

Power. Speed. TV appeal.

That's all that he (and his producers) are interested in. Whether it's an oil burner or a mock hypermiling experiment, it draws the attention of the viewer. The Buggati Veyron seems to gain quite the attention -- as does the Koenigsegg CCX. How about the Porsche 911 GT3 RS? All leaders in FE, I'm sure.

Don't be fooled. We subcribe to auto mags and fixate upon the tellie to be dazzled by Lamborghini Gallardos -- not Chevy Cobalts. Even if the Lambo was powered by children's tears it would be praised.

In the essence of full disclosure -- Top Gear is one of my favorite programs. It's a clever show, the format is entertaining, and the vehicles are unique and often not available in the U.S.

I've just seen it enough to know Clarkson's position on low-BHP conveyances. :)

RH77

I think Jeremy Clarkson has done more to promote fuel efficient practical vehicles than any other person on earth. More importantly he is willing to stick his neck out and chastise a car for the worst sin of all: being boring.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xHJuG5FGRxg

Lets face it. Even the most rediculous supercar is less wasteful than an SUV.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=U3EvsrMaj6U

YouTube - Clarkson's Car Years - The New Romantics part 1

OK, ok -- First I won't take points off for the first 2 broken YouTube links.

But yes, Mr C. has indeed chastised boring vehicles and commended those that were thrifty and exciting during which the 80's were even more harsh in the UK than Stateside "Reaganomics" and Stagflation.

Further, I'll admit that the Golf GTI Mk I is the singlemost vehicle to spark a worldwide passion for "Hot Hatches" -- to set the benchmark for small, and exciting transport. It took Honda's Sport Compact revolution of the 90's to have an impact here -- not since the glory days of the 50's Chevy and Ford rivalries had we seen such a resurgence.

Without the use of video references, I want to use your examples' definition of "boring" to make a few statements...

The U.S. took the Opel Caddett and made a compact, rear-drive compact that boringly saved the 80's middle-class in Chevette form. Apparently, the UK received a much better version. We even got a Diesel that provided it's own Bond-like smokescreen.

The Ford XR3 from the video morphed the Ford EXP into a whole new brand: Merkur, and its hot XR4Ti. Quite fast and feature-laiden for the day. But, they shot craps on reliabilty and the marque disappeared. Not boring, but not reliable. Instead, North America received the Escort, with the most "exciting" showing up late to the party in '03 as the ZX2 S/R. I supposed the Mazda-derived Probe fit in the mix at some point, but not like what the rest of the World was offered.

My single point is that the show would despise anything thrifty and "uninspiring". I can only imagine what they would say about the likes of a Metro -- but we've seen the FE it can produce and the pleasure of its simplicity.

To be truthful, I'm playing Devil's Advocate here. I'm very much a car enthusiast, and boring cars are, indeed, not my cup of tea. I haven't owned a "boring" car in my 14-vehicle history, but I sure have rented several.

I will admit, however, that the bias of the show is shifted to performance-oriented vehicles, unless British Society or History dicatates a demand otherwise. On a recent program, they comdemned their homemade Diesel fuel, simply because it was, well, Diesel by accident (they were hoping for Ethanol). Ask them if they would take the M3 or 330d, and the BMW of choice is obvious.

The conclusion is the lack of a consistent, FE-centric respect: boring or not.

Exclusion: I just watched a recently recorded version, where the team attemped a cross-town sprint across London in the morning rush. The bicyclist made it first, followed by the speedboat down the Thames, The Stig on mass transit, and May in an SUV. They do redeem themselves from time to time...

-Rick

The videos are still available but the no embedding setting on youtube clashes with this forum's automatic video setting for hyper links.

Europeans must not care about the environment; they have been using dirty diesel engines for years that can't pass the smog laws in this country, and then they lecture us about carbon emissions.

I can buy a Prius and get 54 mpg; I can't buy any of the diesels that get that high simply because they are dirty, filthy, polluting destroyers of the planet (or something like that; I'll have to ask our Governator). Top Gear's audience does have a choice, so the trashing of the Prius can be seen as entertaining at least. For those in the US, its a non-sequitar ... equal to saying "Why diet when you can go to the moon and be 1/6th the weight" when you really CAN'T go to the moon!

VW and BMW worked on getting diesels approved for the US, and VW is supposed to have a Rabbit/Golf to be sold her by the end of the year, but they have already pushed back the release date as they try to make it clean enough.

I hope they are successful because bio-diesel is much easier to produce than ethanol or hydrogen.

I'll take 2 please, one to drive and one to convert to an EV

YouTube - World's Smallest Car

Lessons
 

tjts1: I took the page source and watch the vids...

The Audi A8: I saw this vid about a year or so ago. Clarkson's hypermiling experiment sparked the following quote,

"It was the most mentally exhausting thing I've ever done"...

This statement (from the celebrity uttering its words) should be a testament to the Eco-Driving/Hypermiling community. He has raced 24-hour circuits and has attempted a modified design of an existing vehicle to crack the elusive 200 mph mark! A high level of precision and concentration is at hand on nearly every trip we make. Safety should result (OK continuing to watch...)

Ahh, the Prius. I really don't know what to make of this. It has been argued at length in other forum locations, so I won't touch it. I'll continue to drive my gasser until it grenades...and then repair it. :thumbup:

Alrighty: the Focus 5-door argument. What the heck happened to the Station Wagon. I was likely the last generation to partake in riding in a rear-facing seat (ask any kid these days). The vehicle: a 91' Ford Taurus GL Wagon belonging to my friend's family. Of course it was akward, but we never tossed our cookies. We stared-down the drivers behind us, and saw where we had been. Maybe kids would respect their elders more these days if they had seen -- where they had been.

The SUV replaced it in the hierarchichal status of driving existence. Even a Minivan was more convenient. Mark my words -- I think a resurgence is upon us. The P50? Likely not. But a slight pardigm shift would be nice.

RH77

The beginning of this is hating on europe, the later part is saying that you want diesels - so I assume the first part is tongue-in-cheek.

Anyway, for what it is worth, Japan also has diesels, and modern diesels have good emissions and, even under load, don't smell when you drive behind them. Older diesels on the other hand are a different story. Under load you can't actually breathe properly if you are in a car behind a diesel vehicle. I once drove behind a Ford Escort van that had something wrong with the diesel engine. I nearly vomited but overtook it as soon as I could.

In terms of smog / carbon emissions and so on:

Smog - it is not very nice. If you suddenly switch off all cars, then smog disappears in 3 days, and everything is fine. It is a short term menace that is bad for people's health. If we get to a stage where everyone is being killed by smog, we will switch off the cars and be fine in a few days time.

CO2 - also not very nice. If you suddenly switch off all the cars, then it lasts for a long time. It also causes global warming. It is probably the worst type of pollutant as it has global, and long-term effects. If we ever get to a stage where people are being killed by runaway global warming, we will switch off the cars, and it will be too late, and we will all die anyway!

And that is why I'm into hypermiling - because I can reduce my CO2 output when driving my car. Saving money is another plus of course!. I don't mind doing extreme hypermiling including repeated EOCing because I drive old cars that don't even come with a catalytic convertor :) But... I do use a wideband O2 sensor to keep the fuel mixture stoichometric anyway so it makes little difference to my HC emissions.

About the BMW vs Prius thing... The BMW engine was 'idling' as mentioned above (also drafting), and therefore was probably running stoichometric at 14.7:1 ratio. The Prius was maxed out, meaning it would be running rich all the time to prevent detonation, so probably running 10:1 for almost all of the race. Also the gear ratios are different so the BMW was probably running at a much lower RPM than the Prius.

You are completely wrong. Almost no European diesels were imported into the US over the past decade because US diesel fuel had too high a sulfur content, which would have trashed the European cars' advanced emission systems and possibly damaged the engines themselves.

Because new EPA regulations went into effect in late 2007 that required US oil companies to switch to making only ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD), European and Japanese manufacturers can now start to import the advanced diesels they have had for years.

So it wasn't that European diesels were so dirty they couldn't meet US EPA standards, but that they couldn't do it on lousy US fuel. It is simply untrue that the Europeans have been using "dirty diesel" engines for years.

I am not "completely wrong". None of the current European diesels are "50 state diesels" because they are too dirty. They cannot pass California's stringent air quality rules that the EPA is adopting nationwide. They are all too dirty, but as I said, VW is said to be close to getting theirs certified. This Yahoo auto story - Diesel - Overview - Yahoo! Autos - says:

So far, none of the cars meet our more stringent requirements to be sold in all 50 states. The 2007 BLUETEC didn't make it yet, but the VW engine is close to being accepted (according to VW, it should show up late this year).

That article you quote is from 2006 and reflected the situation in 2006, not 2008. So you are in fact completely wrong. When the article was written it was true that there were no European diesels that could meet Tier 2 regs using U.S. 5 ppm LSD. The enabler of a 50-state diesel, EPA-mandated ULSD fuel, was not introduced into the US until late 2007.

But your biggest error - saying that European diesels operating in Europe (using their version of ULSD) were dirty, filthy, polluting destroyers of the planet was..., well, badly misinformed. Except for the possible exception of NOx, modern diesel engines with emission controls produce far less pollution per mile or per liter than do gas engines.

The article from 2006 reflects the situation in 2006 ... and today. I don't think there is a single "50 state diesel" being sold in the US as of this moment because they won't meet our more stringent air quality laws.

The VW Jetta Diesel scheduled for "early 2008" is still not ready, but they say it should be ready for Fall 2008. Mercedes "BlueTec" line, scheduled originally for 2007, is still not here, but the latest news I can find is that in March, 2008, they announced they will be able to sell their 2009 GL320 Bluetec, ML320 Bluetec and R320 Bluetec in America (see Mercedes-Benz Diesel SUVs To Be Available in All 50 U.S. States).

If you know of a European diesel passenger car that meets the California standards and can be sold here in all 50 states, please list it. An assertion that I am "completely wrong" is not a fact, it is an opinion. I have been able to provide some references for my assertion, please provide yours.

European diesels are too dirty to be sold in all 50 states in America. They may be cleaner than European gasoline cars, but they aren't cleaner than California's standard for both gas and diesel cars.

You've modified your argument to be whether or not there is currently a 50-state diesel available, and that is not the issue.

The issue is your original outlandish contention that diesels are "dirty, polluting, filthy, planet-destroying monsters". Diesels produce far lower amounts of all regulated emissions (except NOx) than do gas engines. How that translates into "planet-destroying" I can't figure out. For example, diesels produce so little CO that it is impossible to asphixiate yourself in an enclosed garage by running a diesel engine - it simply won't produce enough CO to kill anyone.

I'm going to say this one more time so maybe you will hear it - it has been impossible to introduce a 50-state diesel until 2008 because ULSD was not available as a fuel until late 2007. The responsibility for that lies not with the engine designs or the car companies, or with diesels per se, but with the oil companies that were providing US consumers with the equivalent of third-world diesel fuel until required to change by the EPA.

You seem to think that MB, VW or Honda introducing diesels within a year of the introduction of ULSD is some sort of negative comment on diesels. These manufacturers can't simply flip a switch and introduce new car lines - it takes time. Within a year is ultra-fast and most likely based on marketing rather than nasty, dirty, planet-destroying diesel problems.

No, you've modified what I've said to support your outlandish argument:

Notice the parenthetical portion ... "(or something like that, I'll have to ask my Governator)." I'll bet most people took that statement in the same light as most of the statements in this thread ... light hearted banter. And besides that, it isn't even my main point ... which is that choosing a diesel over a Prius isn't even an option for me because my state has determined they are too dirty.

You can say it all you want, but it is only partially true. The European car manufacturers have been struggling to produce a diesel engine that meets our air quality rules. In order to do so, even with the new low sulfur fuel, they have had to re-engineer their engines and include other emissions controls not found on the European models. VW has failed the California tests a few times, but say they finally have an engine tweaked enough to meet the standard. The low sulfur fuel is only one part of the equation:

From Diesel cars, now sporting both clean technology and fuel savings, are ready for U.S. rollout - International Herald Tribune

But the same article cites the following:

You can not import any new European diesel car into California and register it (cars with over a certain mileage are exempt from the "must be clean" import rules). They must be able to meet our more stringent rules because they are, indeed, dirty, polluting, filthy, planet-destroying monsters (or something like that).

[Note: the preceding statement requires a bit of a sense of humor to be able to recognize hyperbole and irony.]

I agree this has gotten more serious than it deserves to be, but I think you also gave diesels a bad rap that they do not deserve. Just because there is not a 50-state diesel less than a year after it even became possible does not mean that diesels are horrible, polluting engines. Of all pollutants only NOx is not far below CA emissions requirements. I don't call that a dirty, polluting engine, I call it a clean engine with an NOx problem. Unfortunatly it doesn't matter how much you reduce all the other pollutants, you still can't exceed even one.

Not quite true. You can lease a brand new E320 Bluetec diesel in California right now. Check with your local MB dealer if you don't believe me.

That "filthy, polluting, planet-destroying" comment might have been construed as ironic banter if you had not paired it with "Europeans must not care about the environment; they have been using dirty diesel engines for years...".

I'm not sure this is true ... the last information I saw was dated a few days ago (July 1) and said that they would be leasing them "soon", or that customers could order one "now". They have missed the intro date several times because they have trouble passing the California standards, and I suspect this is another case of that, where the press release is premature.

The latest list of acceptable cars to be sold new in California that are not filthy, polluting, planet-destroying cars is at Background Material: 2008 California Certified Vehicles, but it hasn't been updated in over a year. Maybe the planet hating evil Europeans who desecrate the environment and give us things like fascism, nazism and communism (as well as warm beer) have finally gotten one of their cars clean enough to pass our enlightened standards. They will soon if they have not so far.

So "irony + irony = serious"? I hope I have enough hyperbole in the sentences above to make that equation equal out to ironic banter for you. (I am serious about the warm beer, though). Let me know what particular combination of words would do it for you and I'll try to comply.

Seriously, I do want to see diesel available here, as I think it is the best choice for long-term improvements in fuel efficiency and energy independence (barring some kind of breakthrough in battery technology that gives EVs the range and quick charging ability to pass muster with Americans). Bio-diesel can be made from non-food sources such as algae, and it can be distributed through the existing infrastructure (unlike ethanol, which is problematic in terms of pipelines and storage). Bio-diesel can also provide a "short term closed loop" carbon cycle rather than increasing the amount by releasing carbon trapped over the past few centuries.

The extra $1000 or so cost over conventional gas engines is also less than the premium for gas/electric hybrid systems, so there's only the price differential in the fuel to worry about in terms of consumer acceptance. And that objection will probably be mitigated by the higher mileage diesel vehicles generally get.

Don't forget Democracy, the Magna Carta, and the chocolate eclair.

Algae-based diesel is not yet a reality, but it is thought it may be possible in the near future. I hope so. And biodiesel cannot be transported through petro-diesel pipelines because it would contaminate aviation fuel that travels through the same pipelines. All biodiesel currently has to be transported by tanker (ship, truck, or train). Kerosene, #1 fuel oil, #2 diesel, and Jet-A are basicaly the same thing, while biodiesel is very different.

You got me on the chocolate eclair. I like Europe again now.


Hawai'i has a plant going into production soon (if it hasn't started up already), and Spain, I think, has a plant in production. So it is here.

I had thought ASME biodiesel was acceptable to the automakers, but evidently they won't warranty engines used with more than B5 (VW), and only a few will warranty up to B20 (20% biodiesel, accepted by Peugeot and Citroen). As far as I know, none of them accept higher blends. If biodiesel cannot be transported using the same infrastructure, that eliminates its advantage entirely.

Algae-based biodiesel is here? That's a surprise to me and I'm pretty tuned into the biodiesel community, since I only use B100 in my diesel truck. Show me some. Or even show me a link to a production site that's anything other than a lab experiment or proof of concept. I can probably make biodiesel out of my cat's poop, but that doesn't mean it's here as a fuel.

I'm sorry to be so contrary, but a lot of the things you say about diesel and biodiesel is subtly incorrect. It isn't that manufacturers won't warranty an engine running more than B5, its that they will only approve fuel for use in their vehicles that is below B5. That's not quite the same thing. Because their diesel vehicles are certified to meet air pollution limits using #2 diesel, not biodiesel, they cannot say it's ok to use high concentrations of biodiesel even when their engines may run fine on it. If they did that they would get into huge trouble with the EPA for approving a fuel that might put their fleet out of compliance. However, if the owner decides to use ASTM-certified B100 the manufacturer cannot deny his warranty because he did.

There is also the problem that some jokers will call anything biodiesel even though real biodiesel is only created through the esterfication of biological fats or oils. I'm sure the manufacturers don't want to open up the rat's nest of a bunch of poor slobs putting god knows what into their tanks and destroying their $25,000 engines because someone told them it was biodiesel. Diesel engines are so robust they will handle 5% of almost anything except gasoline and water (and maybe even gasoline). They might very well deny warranties in that case, and rightly so.

Looks like you're right ... the ones in Spain have been issuing press releases since 2006, with production start dates in 2007, and here we are half way through 2008 with none up and running. The ones in Hawai'i are test projects, and not actually producing, I guess. There's more hype in the alternate energy field than in Brother Sam's Travelin' Snake Oil Medicine Show; we should start drilling for real live oil now!


It is a subtle difference, I guess. Would you agree with this statement: If there's a problem with your engine, the auto company will point to your use of non-approved fuel as a possible cause of the problem, and your normal fight to get them to cover a warranty issue will be compounded by more than their normal intransigence.

That difference is subtle, yet the effect is the same. I'm not going to risk thousands of dollars in repair bills on something the automaker doesn't approve.

RE: Clean diesels available from BMW in CA:
From the August 18 edition of the LA TIMES:

It has finally happened. It gets 33 mpg combined with the new EPA ratings, quite a bit more than the 24 mpg combined that the gas version achieves. The article notes that with diesel running about 13% higher in cost than gasoline, and the $2,500 adder to get the diesel engine, the higher mileage may not be the most economical choice (a poster at the article notes there may be a tax credit of $1,300 for buying the new Jetta).

The Prius earns a 46 mpg combined rating. There may be a price difference; the base price of the Jetta is $21,990 according to the article. The Prius "Package 1" runs about $21,500 here in California according to Edmunds.com. The real consideration for owners will be what they get for that comparable price; I found the Package 3 to be my sweet spot with the Prius, and paid $24,040.

Please note that the preceding post does not criticize diesel, Europeans or otherwise intentionally tweak sensitive individuals.

Response to M3 vs. Prius
 

I think this whole segment illustrates a valuable point. A hybrid, no matter how you stack it up, only serves a purpose when you use it for short trips in City. The E92 M3 is by no means an eco friendly vehicle, however the materials used to produce it are less toxic to the environment once the vehicle has expended it's use, and the highway use winner falls solely on Hydrogen, CNG and Diesel, and as Hydrogen isn't a viable fuel yet, and CNG is a hastle, Diesel is currently the most "Green" fuel to use for those of us that commute 20+ miles a day. Let's face it , the Prius is a phenominal vehicle on city streets, as well as it's counterparts from other companies, but if their's one group of people I can't stand, it's the want-to-be-hippies driving their Prius, with the A/C on, cruising down the freeway at 65+ mph with a "save the planet" bumper sticker on it as they haul their 68kg battery pack made from some of the least eco friendly materials on earth.

I know I'm going to get some of you yelling blasphemy because I'm thinking this through, but before you go insulting my observation, look up the facts, and you'll see I'm right on point, and If I'm missing something somewhere, try and keep it to a college level conversation.

There's a lot of misinformation about hybrids out there.

I drive 65 to 75 in my Prius on my daily commute up the 101 freeway, with 35 miles freeway driving and less than 10 miles city driving, and average 50.1 MPG (that's over 10 tankfuls). The NiMH batteries in my Prius are fully recyclable, and present less of an environmental hazard than the small lead acid battery that is used to start it. They are warrantied for 150,000 miles or 8 years in California.

And the Prius handily beats the VW in MPG, even with a lower BTU content fuel.

The "clean diesels" have their own maintenance issues, with many of them requiring chemical canisters (urea?) with periodic replacement required (at every oil change, according to BMW). I haven't found out how VW is dealing with the extra NOx emissions to make the Jetta TDI a 50-state diesel.

BMW's recommended oil changes are also in the 15-20k range, and need specific oils meeting their specs. So every oil change for a 2009 BMW is a lot of miles!

Ok:
http://hiwaay.net/~bzwilson/prius/ca..._MPG_Rev_B.jpg
This data is from the earlier 2001-03 Prius, the vehicle I drive. So I typically cruise at 65 mph and get 52 MPG all day long. I can push it up to 70 mph and get 49 MPG.

The more recent Prius, 2004-2009, gets even better high speed performance:
http://hiwaay.net/~bzwilson/prius/epa.jpg
These are stock, off-the-shelf, prius, a good place to start.

So let's see how the EPA, Fuel Economy, rates the best diesel against the best hybrid:

Jetta TDI - 6.2 tons of CO[2] per year, 11.6 barrels of petroleum, pollution score: 6 (lower ranking)
Prius - 4.0 tons of CO[2] per year, 7.4 barrels, pollution score: 9.5 (best)

Apparently the EPA engineers and scientists continue to find the Prius uses less petroleum and has far better emissions than a diesel. That doesn't mean each can't be improved, one of the reasons folks come here.

Nickel is used to make stainless steel, used for our pots and pans as well as our knives, forks and spoons. Yet apparently some hybrid skeptics claim nickel is terribly, horribly toxic:
http://hiwaay.net/~bzwilson/prius/pri_batt_250.jpg
I've been in a Prius traction battery and find it a fascinating part.

Understand that I enjoy people who make false claims about the Prius and follow it up by exposing their angst and blind, mindless disapproval of the hybrid owners, ". . . one group of people I can't stand, it's the want-to-be-hippies driving their Prius . . ."
http://fairimmigration.files.wordpre...ux_klan_03.jpg
As my college professor once said, "Ignorance can be cured but stupid is forever."

So maybe, just maybe, can we keep our personal opinions to ourselves and NOT trot them out to be answered in kind?

Bob Wilson

I don't know if they still do it, but BMW used to have free routine maintenance for their cars (obviously built into the price of the car, but it was a nice feature). Replacing the NOx stuff has to add some expense, but I have no idea how much that will run. According to some press reports in 2008, BMW was going to pick up the cost of replacing the urea solution during regular maintenance.

bwilson4web, I commnd your well informed response, however you are still missing the point. It was made to sound as if Jeremy C. was only slightly getting the point when he said it's not what you drive but how you drive it, but that's the point all together. any one of my fellow 101 commuters here N. of SF have probably seen the lime Green Gen 2 Prius that weaves in/out of traffic, going full bore. He's a weekly nuisence @ ~4pm-5pm. But for someone like that to say they purchased a Prius to Save the environment is blasphemy at best. I purchased a used honda Accord, and drive it modestly and achieve ~35-40 mpg depending, and although not as magnificent as the Prius, the fact remains that keeping my Used honda on the road and well maintained, means that my carbon footprint is smaller than your Prius... for now. You had to have your Prius built, meaning one more car on the road, mine was pre-existing and gets respectable numbers, and is wel maintained to continue that trend.

I understand bwilson4web that you took my comments as offensive, but you clipped out the important part of my statement, that was if you buy a Prius and drive it as if no matter WHAT you do, you are doing well for the environment, and I can't stand people that call themselves earth friendly, and drive their "Earth frindly" cars as if they can do no harm, Clarkson proved you can take a Prius and turn it into a polluting monster if you don't drive it as intended, I would take offence to the KKK rference if it weren't obvious it was a rebuttle of passion, and it was the only obsurd response in your post.

I like the Prius and I hope they continue to populate our roads, I just hope that they find the right owner, because "It's not what you drive, It's how you drive it"

Sorry, P.S. why not strap a Diesel to the Prius? the increased torque at low RPM could recharge the battery faster and more efficient?